Louisiana man deprived of his 2A rights for a TRAFFIC VIOLATION and mayor approves.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Louisiana man deprived of his 2A rights for a TRAFFIC VIOLATION and mayor approves.

Has anyone heard of this? I am curious where this case is going and if the man plans to sue? I have looked over the site and I have not seen anything regarding this incident.

Snip from article:

Recently, the National Association for Gun Rights was the first to break the incredible story of the suspension of a man's Second Amendment rights in Shreveport, Louisiana.

At the time, no other gun rights organization bothered to expose this violation of Second Amendment freedoms. But when we tracked down the victim, Robert Baillio, for an interview, we couldn't believe what we heard, and we immediately sent out a nationwide alert.

The story went viral overnight.

If this tale of government abuse moves you, send it to a friend or family member to get the word out.

"I never in my life seen a Kentuckian without a gun..."-Andrew Jackson

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."-Patrick Henry; speaking of protecting the rights of an armed citizenry.

"I never in my life seen a Kentuckian without a gun..."-Andrew Jackson

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."-Patrick Henry; speaking of protecting the rights of an armed citizenry.

Thank you for this link. I posted a reply to the article and defended this man. The people posting and the writer act like it is no big deal this man's rights were violated. This officer did not have RAS or PC to search his vehicle. The officer never should have seized the firearm without RAS that some sort of crime had, was, or could have been committed. I don't understand why so many people just brush off such a serious violation of our civil rights.

Last edited by KYGlockster; 08-23-2012 at 02:29 PM.

"I never in my life seen a Kentuckian without a gun..."-Andrew Jackson

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."-Patrick Henry; speaking of protecting the rights of an armed citizenry.

I live in Shreveport and OC there daily without issue. I was once asked to leave a hospital where I was visiting a relative and the SPD were VERY nice, supported my right but were there because the hospital had called them and asked to have me removed even though there were/are NO signs anywhere indicating that guns were not allowed on the property. My other interactions with the SPD have been along these same lines so it is pretty safe to say that there is no standing policy to harass OCers in Shreveport, LA.

I live in Shreveport and OC there daily without issue. I was once asked to leave a hospital where I was visiting a relative and the SPD were VERY nice, supported my right but were there because the hospital had called them and asked to have me removed even though there were/are NO signs anywhere indicating that guns were not allowed on the property. My other interactions with the SPD have been along these same lines so it is pretty safe to say that there is no standing policy to harass OCers in Shreveport, LA.

All that aside, Cedric Glover is still a d-bag, for many reasons having nothing to do with OC or gun rights.

Folks, the esteemable Mr. Brown conveniently left out the fact that many states have laws on the books allowing LEOs to temporarily disarm citizens during a stop. Some states require citizens to inform LEOs up front they're carrying, some don't. Some state require citizens to answer truthfully if asked if they're carrying, some don't.

Immediately after the petition, Mr. Brown asks for donations. Could it be possible *gasp* despite Mr. Brown's tireless efforts, that he's hyper-inflating the story in order to get a rise out of his readers, which then leads to an incensed adrenaline response followed by looser purse strings? If so, then despite his efforts, I question Mr. Browns motives, as they appear to be tainting his accounts of these incidents.

Yes, it does take money to do what we do. I spend at least six hours a day here and other places, including on the various contact pages of local, state, and federal government, as THAT'S what has the most impact on the minds of those who change the laws. I couldn't spend a third of that time if I weren't receiving a retirement check.

One thing I do my best to avoid, however, at all costs, is overstating the case. Such actions quickly loose their status of "reasonable" and get slapped by government workers as "sensationalistic." As a result, petitions from those organizations which do resort to such tactics quickly loose their legitimacy and become no more credible than pulp rags like the National Inquirer.

Now, I ask you: If the National Inquirer were asking you for donations so they could uncover further evidence of UFOs, would you give it to them?

Not I.

I will write my Congressman about this event, as I do not believe any U.S. citizen should be deprived of their right to keep and bear arms for any reason, temporarily or permanent, other than criminal conduct or reasonable articulable suspicion based on behavior that an individual poses a clear and present (immediate) threat to self and others.

Failure to use a turn signal does not meet either of these conditions.

It has come to my attention that leaders of many municipalities throughout our United States of America, such as Shreveport, Louisiana's Mayor Cedric Glover, wrongly believe they have the right, if not the duty, to deprive (infringe upon) the Second Amendment rights of lawfully-armed citizens based solely on the fact those citizens are armed, or worse, suspected of being armed.

These outrages, Sir, must stop.

Not only does our Second Amendment specifically prohibit any infringement on our right to keep and bear arms, but both the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court Cases have affirmed the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

Furthermore, in St. John vs Alamagordo, Federal Judge Bruce D. Black ruled that "Mr. St. John's lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention." In support of his decision, he cited United States v. Ubiles, 224 F.3d 213 (3rd Cir. 2000), which "found that an individual's lawful possession of a firearm in a crowded place did not justify a search or seizure" and that "the situation was no different than if the informant had told officers "that Ubiles possessed a wallet . . . and the authorities had stopped him for that reason."

Judge Black also cited United States v. King, 990 F.2d 1552 (10th Cir. 1993), where "the Tenth Circuit found that an investigatory detention initiated by an officer after he discovered that the defendant lawfully possessed a loaded firearm lacked sufficient basis because the firearm alone did not create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity."

The bottom line, Sir, is that the mere possession of a lawfully-owned firearm does NOT create a reasonable suspicion of prior, current, or future criminal activity, as is therefore insufficient basis to violate a citizen's 4th amendment rights by means of either a stop, detention, seizure, or arrest.

Yet these activities are being promulgated on U.S. citizens by characters such as Mayor Glover and law enforcement officers each and every day.

This gross and flagrant violation of our Constitutional rights must be stopped!

Since these rights are Constitutional, I respectfully request you enact federal legislation making it a crime for any law enforcement officer at at level -- local, county, state, or federal -- to stop, detain, or arrest a lawfully-armed citizen, or to seize the firearm of such a citizen, without reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity connected with the reason for the stop, or of reasonable articulable suspicion that the individual in question poses a clear and present (immediate) danger or harm to the individual himself or to others; and that the mere presence of a firearm does not create such suspicion in either the case of criminal activity, impending danger or harm, or alarm, disturbing the peace, or brandishing.

Congressman, we law-abiding citizens are not the criminals! For decades power has shifted to the police state at the expense of our rights and freedoms, and it's long overdue to shift some of that power back into the hands of the people. This legislation will not shift the Constitutional balance of power. Instead, it corrects the un-Constitutional usurpation of our rights by aberrant individuals acting beyond the Constitutional limits of their authority.

I question Dudley Brown's motives as well, awhile ago I began recieving unsolicited emails from "Dudley Brown" indicating he was the director or the "National Association for Gun Rights"

His emails always contained some "outrageous" story with an immediate plea for money after the story. nearly always his stories were taken out of context or misleading. for example this Louisiana story has been sent to my inbox several times in the last couple years, I also recieved the "Obama is blocking all the M-1 rifles from South Korea story SIX times, and twice after the Obama Administration changed their mind and allowed the M-1 Garands (although not the carbines) to be brought in. His emails would also include lines like "The NRA is anti-gun and are conspiring to take your rights" but of course you could protect your rights by donating to his outfit. It has all the makings of a scam, I've never heard of a lobbyist hired by NAGR, nor anything legislative or court initiative they can take credit for, and frankly I think Dudley is pocketing the money donated.

they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

I question Dudley Brown's motives as well, awhile ago I began recieving unsolicited emails from "Dudley Brown" indicating he was the director or the "National Association for Gun Rights"

His emails always contained some "outrageous" story with an immediate plea for money after the story. nearly always his stories were taken out of context or misleading. for example this Louisiana story has been sent to my inbox several times in the last couple years, I also recieved the "Obama is blocking all the M-1 rifles from South Korea story SIX times, and twice after the Obama Administration changed their mind and allowed the M-1 Garands (although not the carbines) to be brought in.

Well other then having only 2 employees, sending out notices years after the incident happened, opposing gun rights bills in congress, having no effective voice anywhere, claiming credit for bills they had significant part of, and requesting 50 dollar donations with each email, yeah they're EXACTLY like the NRA

And the latest email is pure classic, "As a PAC we can't endorse candidates to you, so donate to us so we can tell you our endorsements who will protect your gun rights"

almost sounds like "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it"

no thanks, I don't need a two man fly-by-night operation giving me paid advice on who to vote for. this is obviously a money-making operation for the founder.

There are several threads involving this group on usacarry, and the AR-15 and Smith&Wesson forums, a common thread (no pun intended) is if a thread asking questions about this group is posted, a "new user" to that forum pops up to defend NAGR and as soon as that thread is done they're never back. I'm incredibly suspicous of this group and would recommend donating no money to them. The NRA has come through for gun owners time and time again, and so has the Second Amendment Foundation.

they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

Well other then having only 2 employees, sending out notices years after the incident happened, opposing gun rights bills in congress, having no effective voice anywhere, claiming credit for bills they had significant part of, and requesting 50 dollar donations with each email, yeah they're EXACTLY like the NRA

And the latest email is pure classic, "As a PAC we can't endorse candidates to you, so donate to us so we can tell you our endorsements who will protect your gun rights"

almost sounds like "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it"

no thanks, I don't need a two man fly-by-night operation giving me paid advice on who to vote for. this is obviously a money-making operation for the founder.

There are several threads involving this group on usacarry, and the AR-15 and Smith&Wesson forums, a common thread (no pun intended) is if a thread asking questions about this group is posted, a "new user" to that forum pops up to defend NAGR and as soon as that thread is done they're never back. I'm incredibly suspicous of this group and would recommend donating no money to them. The NRA has come through for gun owners time and time again, and so has the Second Amendment Foundation.

Agreed...I got tired of the same old emails and asking for money, unsbscribed from their email list. I trust NRA-ILA to keep me informed...as I have for a very, very long time.

Agreed...I got tired of the same old emails and asking for money, unsbscribed from their email list.

That's my principle beef with the guy. There's not a single effort by him that doesn't literally beg for more of my hard-earned dollars.

I trust NRA-ILA to keep me informed...as I have for a very, very long time.

They do indeed have a proven track record of effectiveness, although the NRA's money-begging tactics are difficult to stomach, as well. In fact, that's why I cancelled my membership with the NRA. If they'd simply had a touch more class about it, I'd undoubtedly still be a member, as I have been with AOPA, who has a simple annual fee, and has not NOT ONCE asked for additional funds, much less used scare tactics to try and elicit additional funding.

Originally Posted by Jack House

Well, sounds like they are living upto their name.

Also, it's hard for me to fault any small gun rights organization taking an anti-NRA stance after the NRA's recent behavior.

I don't understand their position, either. I'm a "single-issue" person, and my "single issue" is none other than the United States Constitution, in all it's glory, both original and amended versions, given that the Constitution itself allowed for such amendments. I believe the First Amendment protects the Second, and the Second Amendment protects the First. I also believe our Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment have strengthened both the Constitution and our civil rights to the point where we can redress grievances effectively in our government, even when our "President" repeatedly disdains our Constitution as well as Congress and keeps attempting end-runs around them, primarily via executive orders.

As for the NRA's overly-myopic focus, well, there's a reason I stopped being a member more than two decades ago. I still applaud their ILA efforts, though, and have kicked in some bucks here and there, from time to time.

effectiveness, although the NRA's money-begging tactics are difficult to stomach, as well. In fact, that's why I cancelled my membership with the NRA. If they'd simply had a touch more class about it, I'd undoubtedly still be a member, as I have been with AOPA, who has a simple annual fee, and has not NOT ONCE asked for additional funds, much less used scare tactics to try and elicit additional funding.

Given how TSA has now deemed they have total authority for GA, including searching aircraft and passengers on private commercial flights (as reportedly happened to Ron Paul and his wife when they left Tampa), maybe AOPA should step it up a bit.

Given how TSA has now deemed they have total authority for GA, including searching aircraft and passengers on private commercial flights (as reportedly happened to Ron Paul and his wife when they left Tampa), maybe AOPA should step it up a bit.

AOPA steps things up plenty. They just don't whine about needing more money all the time. Instead, they do something interesting: They live within their budget.